Jury duty

[ScratchMonkey]

So what's the point of it anyway? To have human lie detectors? I know I suck at that. The judge says we're supposed to judge the facts, not the law. So our purpose as the last defense of the minority against bad law has been nerfed. Why bother having a jury at all, then?

[MagnaCentipede]

Punishment for capital crimes are handed to the Community.
The whole community can't be polled, so we take a statistical sample by psudeorandomly selecting a dozen doods.
Ignoring the lawyers being allowed to manipulate which jurors form the pool are employed, this gives a statistically reasonable representation of the Community's will.

The point of having a group is to moderate natural personal biases that can lead to skewed interpetations of facts, as well as missed details.
It also reduces the power of judges, since they determine the magnitude of the verdict, but not the verdict itself.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

So what's the point of it anyway? To have human lie detectors? I know I suck at that. The judge says we're supposed to judge the facts, not the law. So our purpose as the last defense of the minority against bad law has been nerfed. Why bother having a jury at all, then?

Yes, you judge the facts, not the law, but you're judging how the facts relate to the law. Don't forget that your jury's decision could be just as important legally as a law that a legislature passes. Your decision IS the law, at least for a while...

[stickyjeans69]

The Jury decides if he's Guilty or not based on the facts given. the judge/magestrate decides the punishment based on the facts given(first second or third degree murder, etc etc.) and then asigns the punishment to be carried out. or in the case of a hung jury/not guilty. the judges importance becomes moot and he does next to nothing ^.^ the DA can then try to re-persue the case, but weather or not it goes any further. depends on the jury. the importance of a jury is very much, it balances very heavy problems. kind of like the balancing act between Congress, The president, and the Supreme court. take one out of the equation and things become unbalanced people become power hungry and you have a huge mess

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

So what's the point of it anyway? To have human lie detectors? I know I suck at that. The judge says we're supposed to judge the facts, not the law. So our purpose as the last defense of the minority against bad law has been nerfed. Why bother having a jury at all, then?

There is a group of people that believes you should judge the law as well as the facts. And this is actually what happens in many cases. Can't avoid it.

I can't see how the original framers of the constitution didn't believe this. If it was only to judge the facts then you could have expert fact and law knower's and that would be enough.

But if you are judged by your peers then a major factor is how your peers interpret the law. And if they interpret it as stupid then you get off.

[ScratchMonkey]

Twice now I've been excused after I informed the court that I had once lived next to a convicted serial killer and now am close friends with his wife (a subject of his beatings). What do you suppose scares them?

[TheFeniX]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Twice now I've been excused after I informed the court that I had once lived next to a convicted serial killer and now am close friends with his wife (a subject of his beatings). What do you suppose scares them?

It could be nothing. You could just fit a preconceived notion based upon you race, age, economic standing, etc.

If it actually IS based upon your comment: I'd say the DA might think being so closely involved in a situation like that could make you sympathetic to criminals. And a defense attorney might think that after talking with his wife, you might be biased against suspected criminals.

Weird isn't it.

And a judge might tell you that you are only there to judge the facts of a case and how it breaks X law, but you are under no obligation to do so. There is no penalty for a juror who doesn't vote the way a judge or DA wants them to. Sure, they'll talk a big deal and may try to intimidate you, but "activist juries" are not illegal.

If you think a law is unjust, you can make that apparent by your vote, but just remember, it may have other consequences.

[xTYBALTx]

If the judge doesn't think you are judging the case on the facts; i.e. if he thinks you are judging the law instead, he has the ability to remove you from the jury. He can do this at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu..._United_States

A California law requires jurors to inform the judge if it appears that one of their peers is ruling in contradiction to the law.

[Acreo Aeneas]

Judgement by Jury is in the "bill of rights".

And yes it is boring and you end up spending at least a full day sitting around a courthouse.

Plus, I have jury duty in 2 weeks.

[Prmetime]

I read this and think back on my 17 years of law enforcements during indictment hearings and jury cases. You as a juror can determine what a 'reasonable person' would consider to be right or wrong, legal or illegal. I have been fortunate to never have an indictment turned down, but there were several times where I would have to show case law and legislation to members to explain the complexity of the particular case.

As weird as our legal system is nowadays, the jury was one thing that I have appreciated the most during my career. It's not my job to determine sentencing or guilt, but to interpret the law and the elements of the crime to bring the person in front of a judge/jury so that they may be judged by their peers. As long as I go home to my family at night, then it's been a good shift.

Great topic and I've enjoyed reading the responses.

Prime

[Dimmu]

I love how the officer tells you to have no personal bias in the situation that your doing jury duty for. The human mind is normally bias; come on people, jury duty is just there to make a couple of extra $$$ and sit around listening to people.

[Kerostasis]

Its only a couple extra bucks if you're unemployed...the pay is usually less than what you would earn by just going to work that day instead.

Still, its an important duty, and I'd be happy to go serve on a Jury if I was called up. Hasn't happened so far.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Originally Posted by Dimmu

I love how the officer tells you to have no personal bias in the situation that your doing jury duty for. The human mind is normally bias; come on people, jury duty is just there to make a couple of extra $$$ and sit around listening to people.

And thats why if you're ever called, please inform the judge that you're only in it for the money.

You're only bias if you're a biased person to begin with

[Prmetime]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

And thats why if you're ever called, please inform the judge that you're only in it for the money.

You're only bias if you're a biased person to begin with

Agree with this

[Switch]

Originally Posted by Dimmu

I love how the officer tells you to have no personal bias in the situation that your doing jury duty for. The human mind is normally bias; come on people, jury duty is just there to make a couple of extra $$$ and sit around listening to people.

The jury duty pay does not cover the cost of gas going to court, not to mention the lost wages if you're working hourly.

The only benefit is if you get slated with a case you feel strongly about, you can feel as if you made a difference.